Editorial: Rhetoric on Ferguson undermines right to protest

Ferguson. The emotions involved with this St. Louis suburb echo far outside of Missouri.

Ever since the grand jury decided not to indict Officer Darren Wilson for the killing of the unarmed, black teenager Michael Brown, everyone in the country suddenly became a lawyer, formulating opinions on the case, Darren Wilson, Michael Brown and, perhaps most heatedly, the protestors.

As demonstrated by images that appeared on our television screens, it was clear that the town of Ferguson quickly erupted into chaos after the grand jury’s decision — with “protestors” looting stores and vandalizing businesses.

Certainly, such actions are not condonable, but where do we draw the line between rioting and protesting?

Right now, the answer is unclear, as mainstream media and pundits alike have made little to no effort to draw a line — television cameras seem to have lumped the right to protest and unlawful riots together.

Consequently, supporting Michael Brown has become synonymous with approval of the crimes he allegedly committed and a hatred for police officers, according to conservative media and interest groups.

In fact, football players from the NFL’s St. Louis Rams experienced such generalizations this past Sunday after they expressed support for the protestors in Ferguson by entering the field for Sunday’s game with their arms raised — a symbol for the movement in support of Michael Brown in Ferguson.

“We wanted to come out and show our respect to the protests and the people who have been doing a heck of a job around the world,” said Rams player Jared Cook.

Yet, despite the players’ peaceful intentions, the St. Louis Police Officers Association immediately called for the NFL to “discipline” its players for their protest, saying that they were “profoundly disappointed” with the players’ actions.

Similarly, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani expressed discontent for the protests in Ferguson on Fox News’ “Hannity,” earlier in November. He called the movement “un-American,” asking viewers, “Isn’t the answer to this: Abide by the jury’s verdict?”

The irony here is astounding — in a country founded on free speech and political dissent, it is now considered “un-American” to protest.

Of course, this attitude is probably a result of the looting and apparent violence TV crews in Ferguson covered after the Grand Jury’s decision.

However, that doesn’t make actual protests, such as those of the Rams players or of many other people across the country, any less of a right.

Figures like Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. were able to move toward equality by exercising the right to protest — so let’s not forget its value, even in the face of violence.

In moving forward from the crisis in Ferguson, it’s important for us to remember that the movement in Ferguson, when it comes down to it, is a protest. It is a protest for equality in the eyes of the law, not a riot intended to loot and harm others, despite what some outside sources may believe.  

Even if you disagree on whether or not something is worth protesting, as Americans, we should all agree that we still have the right to do so.